U.S.'s Blinken: 'The path to diplomacy is open right now' with Iran

[webfact]

U.S.'s Blinken: 'The path to diplomacy is open right now' with Iran

 

FILE PHOTO: Newly confirmed U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken removes his face mask as he arrives to hold his first press briefing at the State Department in Washington, U.S., January 27, 2021. REUTERS/Carlos Barria/Pool

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken said on Tuesday "the path to diplomacy is open right now" with Iran over its 2015 nuclear deal but would not address whether the Biden administration has had any direct engagement with Iranian officials.

 

"The path to diplomacy is open right now. Iran is still a ways away from being in compliance (with the deal). So we'll have to see what it does," Blinken told National Public Radio according to a transcript provided by the broadcaster.

 

Asked if there was any move under way to resume direct diplomacy, Blinken pointed to U.S. President Joe Biden's public stance that if Iran resumes compliance with the 2015 nuclear deal the United States would do so too.

 

"The president's been very clear publicly, repeatedly, about where we stand. And we'll see what, if any, reaction Iran has to that," he said.

 

The interviewer noted Blinken had not directly answered the question and asked: "but you're not ruling out that direct diplomacy might be somewhere in the future here?"

 

Blinken responded: "Well, at some point, presumably, if there's going to be any engagement on this, that would have to require diplomacy. That's what we're in the business of."

 

In 2018, former U.S. President Donald Trump abandoned the nuclear deal, which limited Iran's uranium enrichment activity to make it harder for Tehran to develop nuclear arms - an ambition Iran has long denied having - in return for the easing of U.S. and other sanctions.

 

When Trump left the deal, which Iran struck with six major powers, he reimposed crippling sanctions on Iran's economy.

 

In response, Tehran has breached the deal's key limits, enriching uranium to 20% - above a 3.67% cap but below the 90% needed for weapons - expanding its stockpile of low-enriched uranium, and using advanced centrifuges for enrichment.

 

Iran has told the U.N. nuclear watchdog it will scale back cooperation with it in a week, ratcheting up protests against U.S. sanctions still choking its economy.

 

(Reporting by Arshad Mohammed)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2021-02-17

 

- Whatever you're going through, the Samaritans are here for you

- Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking COVID-19 updates

[dexterm]

OP:"The path to diplomacy is open right now. Iran is still a ways away from being in compliance (with the deal). So we'll have to see what it does," Blinken told National Public Radio according to a transcript provided by the broadcaster.
...and the USA is 110% away from compliance, with Trump not only reneging on a promise that Obama made, but trying to destroy the Iranian economy with punitive sanctions, and bullying the rest of the world to follow suit. Bear in mind that the USA broke the deal first, but now wants Iran to be the first to recomply. Chutzpah. Iranians don't trust USA, and I don't blame them.

 

OP:"Blinken pointed to U.S. President Joe Biden's public stance that if Iran resumes compliance with the 2015 nuclear deal the United States would do so too."
...not true. The USA has not promised to return fully to the 2015 deal that Trump broke. Biden wants to move the goalposts. Iran complies, then USA says: Oh by the way, we want to rewrite the deal. Give up your ballistic missile testing and rein in your Shia militias, so that you are completely emasculated and Israel can do whatever it likes to you with impunity.

 

If it's diplomacy Biden wants, then begin the incremental tit for tat compliance on both sides with an EU intermediary that Iran has suggested.

Then with the nuclear weapons off the table, arrange a major regional peace conference where all the other issues are on the table..ballistic missiles, militias, regional influence, threats replaced with peace initiatives from Saudi Arabia, UAE and Israel. Makes more sense to me, that is if you really do want peace in the region.

[Tug]

Let us all hope it bears fruit less nukes relief for the average Iranian families and both of our nations taking tenitave steps towards normalcy 

[Morch]

 

@dexterm

 

You seem to misguidedly think international politics is a level playing ground. It isn't. Countries routinely use whatever leverage they can get via differences in power, influence, and circumstances. Diplomacy does not imply that all is fair, transparent or just. Not sure where you got the notion from. Going on and on about it being unfair, and getting bogged in the who-goes-first, they-started-it and all that is fine, just not productive.

 

And again, the USA's signing of the JCPOA was problematic from the start. Obama did not quite have the necessary political support, yet went ahead with it anyway. The pitfalls were out in the open, discussed on various media outlets (even on this forum) well before the actual signing.

 

As for your closing comment, what would be Iran's motivation to alter its ways, policies or the JCPOA if they already got what they wanted? As a reminder,  it was acknowledged that the JCPOA was focused on Iran's nuclear activities, failing to address wider issues. It was considered as the best to could have been achieved under the prevailing circumstances at the time. 

[dexterm]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

@dexterm

 

You seem to misguidedly think international politics is a level playing ground. It isn't. Countries routinely use whatever leverage they can get via differences in power, influence, and circumstances. Diplomacy does not imply that all is fair, transparent or just. Not sure where you got the notion from. Going on and on about it being unfair, and getting bogged in the who-goes-first, they-started-it and all that is fine, just not productive.

 

And again, the USA's signing of the JCPOA was problematic from the start. Obama did not quite have the necessary political support, yet went ahead with it anyway. The pitfalls were out in the open, discussed on various media outlets (even on this forum) well before the actual signing.

 

As for your closing comment, what would be Iran's motivation to alter its ways, policies or the JCPOA if they already got what they wanted? As a reminder,  it was acknowledged that the JCPOA was focused on Iran's nuclear activities, failing to address wider issues. It was considered as the best to could have been achieved under the prevailing circumstances at the time. 

>>Countries routinely use whatever leverage they can get via differences in power, influence, and circumstances. 
...countries routinely use their power and influnce to start wars too, then try to shut the door after the horse has bolted. The USA has a long track record of doing so.  Biden is playing a misguided game of brinkmanship.

 

Israel has already said it wants nothing to do with Biden's diplomacy, has heightened tensions by murdering an Iranian nuclear scientist, and suggested military action.

“It would appear that only crippling sanctions – keeping the current sanctions and even adding new sanctions – combined with a credible military threat that Iran fears – might bring Iran to real negotiations with Western countries that might ultimately produce a deal truly capable of preventing it breaking ahead [to nuclear arms],” Erdan [Israel’s ambassador to the US] said.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/israel-may-not-be-part-of-strategy-if-us-returns-to-nuclear-deal/ar-BB1dJ1bK

 

You waffle over diplomacy as being bogged down. What's the big problem for the US to allow Iran to sell some oil, so long as Iran surrenders its recently created uranium metal and halts enrichment ..both deals same day. Then Iran surrenders its 20% enriched uranium, while US supports a request from Iran to the IMF for a loan to help deal with the Covid-19 pandemic? and so on until we are back to centrifuges destroyed and sanctions lifted. Objective achieved ...no nuclear weapons for Iran. Was so obvious to Obama, but not to someone like you who has a problem for every solution.

 

And of course if Israel starts a war, they will come whining to the US to help them out. Thousands of casualties on all sides, Iran, Lebanon, Syria and Israel, including US personel. based in the ME That's the risk Biden is taking.

 

Seems to me Biden is offering no hope of relief to Iran , so I don't blame Iran for returning to the status quo before Obama made a promise on the US behalf to end nuclear proliferation, the promis e thatTrump broke that promise. The whole world agreed the 2015 deal was working..apart from Trump and Israel and you!

 

Biden is playing a dangerous game that is so easy to resolve without suffering.

Edited February 17, 2021 by dexterm

[Surelynot]

Biden administration: 'The path to diplomacy is open right now' with Iran

 

Trump administration: Can't we just nuke them?

[Morch]

 

@dexterm

 

Deflect away. There are plenty of diplomatic standoffs, clashes and whatnot. They very rarely transform into actual wars. Most fizzle away, or end up being sorted without much violence. The scaremongering on offer is dully noted.

 

Biden and his team played a part in Middle East brinkmanship, including the creation of the JCPOA. I kinda think that they are much better informed, and with way deeper insight on matters relating to this, than you imply.

 

Also, your own agenda, point of view and politics are not theirs. The notions that they somehow "fail" by not living up to your faux "expectations", or operate by the simplistic schoolyard morality suggested, are equally bogus.

 

As said on other topics - what's openly announced by either side is probably for public consumption. I have little doubt that negotiations (direct or otherwise) are taking place, and that they involve a give-and-take approach. It probably won't be a formula quite as one-sided as pictured in Biden's comments, but still leaning to the USA's position. Go ahead and make up some more nonsense about my position and views, though.

 

I get it you want to push Israel into each and every topic, but there's no war about to be started. A whole lot of hot air, limited operations - clandestine and nearer to home, but that's about it. Been like that for years, same goes for the talk. If you want to shoot....

 

You're welcome to continue and ignore facts regarding how the JCPOA came about, the political landscape during signing and issues involved. While at it keep ignoring that diplomacy and international relations are not what you paint them to be.

[vandeventer]

It looks like Biden wants to make friends with our enemies, and enemies with our friends. Good move Joe you will make us all sleep better at night. I hope the job hasn't gone to your head as America needs you to do the right thing.

[heybruce]

21 minutes ago, vandeventer said:

It looks like Biden wants to make friends with our enemies, and enemies with our friends. Good move Joe you will make us all sleep better at night. I hope the job hasn't gone to your head as America needs you to do the right thing.

You clearly have Biden confused with Trump.

[dexterm]

19 minutes ago, vandeventer said:

It looks like Biden wants to make friends with our enemies, and enemies with our friends. Good move Joe you will make us all sleep better at night. I hope the job hasn't gone to your head as America needs you to do the right thing.

You do realize that 80,000 US troops are stationed throughout all the Gulf States, Syria, and Iraq. Neither they nor Joe Biden will be sleeping so easily, if his brinkmanship escalates into another war.

 

https://www.usnews.com/news/elections/articles/2020-01-09/after-recent-deployments-how-many-us-troops-are-in-the-middle-east

[TKDfella]

Why all the reference to FPDT? He won't be doing anymore negotiating.

The point now is whether the present administration can trust Iran to abide by an agreement. No doubt Iran would want Pres. Biden to reverse any and all restrictions/sanctions incurred from the last admin. But that might not be wise unless Pres. Biden got something concrete in return. But it isn't as straight forward as that either, as I'm sure Pres. Biden would also have to try to get Israel on board too, which, bearing in mind what Israel has already said, might be the more difficult of the two.

[placeholder]

1 minute ago, TKDfella said:

Why all the reference to FPDT? He won't be doing anymore negotiating.

The point now is whether the present administration can trust Iran to abide by an agreement. No doubt Iran would want Pres. Biden to reverse any and all restrictions/sanctions incurred from the last admin. But that might not be wise unless Pres. Biden got something concrete in return. But it isn't as straight forward as that either, as I'm sure Pres. Biden would also have to try to get Israel on board too, which, bearing in mind what Israel has already said, might be the more difficult of the two.

Israel was never on board. As long as this or similarly composed government are in power in Israel, they never will be. 

As for trusting the Iranians, not an issue. It never was a matter of trust. There was a strict inspection regimen. 

[Morch]

5 hours ago, dexterm said:

You do realize that 80,000 US troops are stationed throughout all the Gulf States, Syria, and Iraq. Neither they nor Joe Biden will be sleeping so easily, if his brinkmanship escalates into another war.

 

https://www.usnews.com/news/elections/articles/2020-01-09/after-recent-deployments-how-many-us-troops-are-in-the-middle-east

 

Other than in your scaremongering posts, there's no war. And pretty unlikely that there will be one anytime soon. A whole lot more red lines need to be crossed for that to happen. A lot more will to engage at a war during a pandemic, too.

[Morch]

3 hours ago, placeholder said:

Israel was never on board. As long as this or similarly composed government are in power in Israel, they never will be. 

As for trusting the Iranians, not an issue. It never was a matter of trust. There was a strict inspection regimen. 

 

As per the first point, yes and no. There's often a gap between what Israel's right-wing politicians are saying, and what their security chiefs assess. And there's also this - while various clandestine operations continue, and the same with regard to addressing Iran's presence and reach nearer to Israel, there's been no actual attempt by Israel to do anything more than that. A whole lot of hot air, but that still doesn't make them capable of handling this militarily in any significant way. Previous instances where action was possible were characterized by the absence of the constant chatter related to Iran.

 

As for the sort of clandestine operations we sometimes read about, I'm pretty sure that there's some level of understanding between Israel and the USA regarding what's on and what's not. Don't know if it comes to full cooperation etc. though.

 

Israeli right-wing governments can denounce the agreement all they like, and not be 'on board'. Doesn't mean a whole lot in practical sense, but plays nice to some voter segments.

[Chomper Higgot]

36 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Other than in your scaremongering posts, there's no war. And pretty unlikely that there will be one anytime soon. A whole lot more red lines need to be crossed for that to happen. A lot more will to engage at a war during a pandemic, too.

The Biden administration is signaling its receptiveness to a bit of ‘jaw jaw’, which as Churchill observed is better than ‘war war’.

 

The ‘war war’ bit is, as you say unlikely anytime soon and with Biden’s administration openly stating receptiveness to a bit of ‘jaw jaw’ the likelihood of ‘war war’ is further reduced.

 

What a difference an election makes.

 

 

 

[dexterm]

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The Biden administration is signaling its receptiveness to a bit of ‘jaw jaw’, which as Churchill observed is better than ‘war war’.

 

The ‘war war’ bit is, as you say unlikely anytime soon and with Biden’s administration openly stating receptiveness to a bit of ‘jaw jaw’ the likelihood of ‘war war’ is further reduced.

 

What a difference an election makes.

 

 

 

The war, if it happens, will be started by Israel and USA will feel obliged to support them. 

So what's next? If Biden refuses to return to the nuclear deal that Trump reneged on, in a sensible  incremental way as Iran suggests with EU intermediaries, who's going to prevent Iran's further enrichment of uranium with inspectors withdrawn as of 23 Feb?

[Morch]

35 minutes ago, dexterm said:

The war, if it happens, will be started by Israel and USA will feel obliged to support them. 

So what's next? If Biden refuses to return to the nuclear deal that Trump reneged on, in a sensible  incremental way as Iran suggests with EU intermediaries, who's going to prevent Iran's further enrichment of uranium with inspectors withdrawn as of 23 Feb?

 

Israel's leaders (or rather, leader) spend a decade, if not more, spreading hot air, threats and fiery statements related to Iran. No war materialized, not even a limited military strike. There's nothing much to support your opinion that this would change in any significant way.  If what you imagine was a thing, would have been much easier pulling it off during Trump's term.

 

Not all inspectors will be 'withdrawn' (or more correctly, prevented from carrying inspections), but rather the surprise visits etc. will cease. Not quite the same thing, but would still imply the termination of the JCPOA. 

 

The by product being other signatories obligated to reintroduce sanctions. China and Russia complying with this is not assured, the EU and the UK will, though.

 

Iran seems to be doing the same thing it did all along - create a deadline/crisis, offer a way our fitting its own goals, seat back and wait for the EU/UK to scramble and save the day. Walking the brink of a crisis is very much Iran's way.

 

I'm pretty sure negotiations are underway, and that a formula will be reached, allowing this episode to be either resolved or postponed.

[Jeffr2]

On 2/17/2021 at 2:27 PM, vandeventer said:

It looks like Biden wants to make friends with our enemies, and enemies with our friends. Good move Joe you will make us all sleep better at night. I hope the job hasn't gone to your head as America needs you to do the right thing.

At least he won't be praising dictators like Trump did. Or did you miss that? Inviting the brutal dictator Kim into his armed car was stunning. Sad you are ok with these things.

Edited February 18, 2021 by onthedarkside
personal comment removed

[placeholder]

11 hours ago, Morch said:

 

As per the first point, yes and no. There's often a gap between what Israel's right-wing politicians are saying, and what their security chiefs assess. And there's also this - while various clandestine operations continue, and the same with regard to addressing Iran's presence and reach nearer to Israel, there's been no actual attempt by Israel to do anything more than that. A whole lot of hot air, but that still doesn't make them capable of handling this militarily in any significant way. Previous instances where action was possible were characterized by the absence of the constant chatter related to Iran.

 

As for the sort of clandestine operations we sometimes read about, I'm pretty sure that there's some level of understanding between Israel and the USA regarding what's on and what's not. Don't know if it comes to full cooperation etc. though.

 

Israeli right-wing governments can denounce the agreement all they like, and not be 'on board'. Doesn't mean a whole lot in practical sense, but plays nice to some voter segments.

Well, the gap was between Netanyahu claiming that Iran was violating the terms of the agreement and the security chiefs saying they weren't. I don't know that any of them were happy that the Iranian economy could get a huge boost from the agreement. (Given the corruption and infighting among the Iranian leadership, it's not so clear how big a benefit it turned out to be.) So, no, they weren't on board. 

 

[Jingthing]

Good news.

No harm in talking. 

Hopefully there will be a fresh deal that both sides can live with.

The Iranian regime may be awful but the Iranian people are just people. 

[Morch]

5 hours ago, placeholder said:

Well, the gap was between Netanyahu claiming that Iran was violating the terms of the agreement and the security chiefs saying they weren't. I don't know that any of them were happy that the Iranian economy could get a huge boost from the agreement. (Given the corruption and infighting among the Iranian leadership, it's not so clear how big a benefit it turned out to be.) So, no, they weren't on board. 

 

 

Not saying they were 'on board', just that whether they are or not is largely immaterial. They can complicate matters by taking limited actions, running political interference and the like, but ultimately the reach is limited.

 

[placeholder]

35 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Not saying they were 'on board', just that whether they are or not is largely immaterial. They can complicate matters by taking limited actions, running political interference and the like, but ultimately the reach is limited.

 

Hardly immaterial. They certainly played a very important part in Trump's withdrawal from the agreement. Could Israel have had a stronger or better placed supporter than Jared Kushner?

[Morch]

13 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Hardly immaterial. They certainly played a very important part in Trump's withdrawal from the agreement. Could Israel have had a stronger or better placed supporter than Jared Kushner?

 

You've managed to mess the quotes, but that hardly matters. Trump was vocally against the JCPOA from quite an early stage. So where other right-wing figures. And while I'm sure Israel (well, Netanyahu more-like) did contribute to this, maybe not quite the all decisive factor.

 

Be that as it may, not seeing a re-run of the same with the current administration, not even the stunt pulled on Obama with Netanyahu's speech in the USA. So currently, at least, it's not very central to the issue.

[placeholder]

11 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

You've managed to mess the quotes, but that hardly matters. Trump was vocally against the JCPOA from quite an early stage. So where other right-wing figures. And while I'm sure Israel (well, Netanyahu more-like) did contribute to this, maybe not quite the all decisive factor.

 

Be that as it may, not seeing a re-run of the same with the current administration, not even the stunt pulled on Obama with Netanyahu's speech in the USA. So currently, at least, it's not very central to the issue.

I agree that whether the Israel govt is for or against the agreement is largely immaterial to the Biden administration.

[onthedarkside]

An off-topic post and a social media video post have been removed.

 

See the forum's policy:

 

"Social Media content is acceptable in most social forums. However, in factual areas such as news, current affairs and health topics, it cannot be used unless it is from a credible news media source or government agency, and must include a weblink to the original source."